I think we "Cherry Pick" the legislation which, one day we may need to protect us (as individuals), and have scant regard for the rest, once again, in a society, as individuals we can't pick and chose, but then again didn't Maggie say "There is no such thing as Society", so if she's proved correct, please ignore this post.

Having just come from a thread where I made a comment on this subject, would you say that, overall, The Human Rights Act has been a good thing or a bad thing? Has it been misused/misinterpreted? In what way would you like to see the Act changed? Would you prefer it was done away with?

I do not know a great deal about the complexities of the Human Rights Act, particularly in relation to the EU courts, but overall I would say general Human Rights legislation is essential and a basic set of human rights should be accepted worldwide. It becomes complicated when not all countries sign up to the same set of human rights, when there is incompatibility or no human rights within a country.
The idea of defining "human rights" within a legal or moral framework is is not a modern one. One of the oldest records of a declaration of human rights was the 1264 Statute of Kalisz - a general charter of Jewish liberties.
In modern times I suppose a starting point would be the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights (UNCA).
I do think that these days things have become complicated, which does lead to misinterpretation and abuse, so I would like to see simplification. Maybe if the whole of Europe (including UK) could agree with each other more and the laws were simplified, then there would be no recourse for appeal after appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights when a decision made by an EU country is not accepted.
I also think it is important that the judgement process should be speeded up considerably - particularly with regard to asylum seekerss/immigration and who is or is not allowed to remain in the country (UK). I think this area is quite important to get straight.
It is complicated, I think, but maybe if someone is not totally willing to sign up and commit to the country they wish to live by swearing allegiance to that country and observing all its laws regardless - then they should not be afforded the advantage of that country's protection and should be returned to the country of their origin. People should not be allowed to pick and choose and, I believe, they should be prepared to demonstrate and prove their loyalty and allegiance to the country they want to stay in and which affords them protection.

Rena darlin' - Whilst the European Court of Human Rights has that title, for the sake of clarity it has NOTHING to do with the European Union per se and should not be confused with each other.

I concur with regard to refugees and there is a particular treaty (Vienna Treaty???) whereby refugees can claim political asylum in the FIRST country they arrive in within the European Union. It was the failure of the Italian and French Governments to apply the terms of that treaty correctly and allow refugees and asylum seekers to travel across their borders to try and claim asylum here, which caused huge political problems some years ago.

That was taken very much out of context IMO, she meant we have to try and take care of ourselves because government cannot do it for us. It's haunted us since though and she should have come out years ago and clarified exactly what she did mean.